If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Comment

You may suggest that the V's...on the eyelids AND cheeks were coleateral damage from the almost complete severing of Kates nose...but that doesnt answer why her nose was being cut in the first place. Answer that without some symbolic inference, then the collateral theory might have some legs.

We can't even call these cuts "Vs" without knowing intent, so I don't even want to go there. Yet, why does this have to symbolize something? I mean, cutting the nose. Why can't it just be a new thing to cut at, a new experience?

Mike

huh?

Comment

We can't even call these cuts "Vs" without knowing intent, so I don't even want to go there. Yet, why does this have to symbolize something? I mean, cutting the nose. Why can't it just be a new thing to cut at, a new experience?

Mike

Hi Mike,
I'm guessing that this was the work of a disorganized attacker. The wounds reflect a blitz or frenzied style of attack on her face in my opinion.
Mark

Comment

Hi Mike,
I'm guessing that this was the work of a disorganized attacker. The wounds reflect a blitz or frenzied style of attack on her face in my opinion.
Mark

Hi,

I don't pay much attention to such labels. I used to, but now I understand that it is all opinion and is used more for the comfort of the labeler than for the actual precision of the label. It's how I feel about psychology in general. But...that being said, I do agree that there seems to be some savagery applied here rather than somebody wanting to carve letters. Still, I'm open to it, but it doesn't seem likely to me at this point. No argument has remotely supported such a thing in my opinion and they all seem to be wishful thinking for theory support rather than well-thought, sensible ideas for my part.

Comment

If the Hardy Boys couldn't solve it then it can't be solved. Of course they would need the help of their stout friend Chet Morton. I think I read every book in the series when I was a kid.

I remember reading somewhere that Franklin W. Dixon (which was a pen name) only wrote the first two or three books. After that he would put together a story line and hand it off to a group of writers who would basically write the story.

Comment

If the Hardy Boys couldn't solve it then it can't be solved. Of course they would need the help of their stout friend Chet Morton. I think I read every book in the series when I was a kid.

I remember reading somewhere that Franklin W. Dixon (which was a pen name) only wrote the first two or three books. After that he would put together a story line and hand it off to a group of writers who would basically write the story.

c.d.

That was the same with a lot of pulp fiction like Doc Savage and the Avengers. Tons of writers with the same name.

Comment

That was the same with a lot of pulp fiction like Doc Savage and the Avengers. Tons of writers with the same name.

Mike

The Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew, the Bobsey Twins and I believe some others were all dreamed up by a publisher, then farmed out to different writers. When I first learned that I found it difficult to believe that that same people were responsible as I totally disliked the Bobbsey Twin books, but loved the mystery books.

Wish I'd had that lucerative an idea. . .

Comment

We can't even call these cuts "Vs" without knowing intent, so I don't even want to go there. Yet, why does this have to symbolize something? I mean, cutting the nose. Why can't it just be a new thing to cut at, a new experience?

Mike

As I said Mike, people interpret those marks as ancialliary damage without knowing that they were, and without explaining why the nose was cut in the first place. I suggested a possible reason why someone might cut a nose, and if Kates story about turning in someone for the reward money was accurate then there exists a reason for someone to cut her nose symbolically.

As for it being a "new thing", that presupposes that the very repetitive nature of the first 2 attacks and the focus of those attacks was flexible with this C1/C2 killer. Why? Why would he change at all? What catalyst cause him to re-evaluate his goals? Why would anyone assume that someone who is very specific and very repetitive wouldn't continue to be exactly that way every time? Why do we have to imagine a constantly morphing criminal... in order to explain subsequent murders that have some very prominent differences from those first 2 kills?

The Morphing Ripper is simply a construct of Ripperologists and Serial killer students with preferential theories, its not something that is indicated by evidence.

I see no reasons to assume that the man that killed Polly and Annie....by all measurements almost certainly the same man...changes 1 iota next time out...if there was a next time. 2 virtually identical attacks within 10 days, with the same abdominal focus in the PM phase. Its a month until another murder and its totally unlike the predecessors.

Comment

The "Facts" are the things you doubters doubt, but upon which the great and mighty Pierre has solved this 125+ year old mystery.

say he needs to be deified.

Don't look at the irrepressible phony and jester behind that open curtain. Look at the great head called the "Wonderful Wizard of Sham" or "Pierre". Gaze at my monument and despair ye struggling researchers!!!

Comment

Its is a fact at that time in history that some criminal groups cut words or symbols into the faces of snitches, before or after killing them.

You may suggest that the V's...on the eyelids AND cheeks were coleateral damage from the almost complete severing of Kates nose...but that doesnt answer why her nose was being cut in the first place. Answer that without some symbolic inference, then the collateral theory might have some legs.

Perhaps it didnt belong somewhere, or someone wanted to spite her face.

Well, this isn't a reasonable man we're talking about and so I don't think you're going to find much reason in his actions.

I doubt very much he knew any of them. More likely, in my opinion, that he was merely extremely spiteful and extremely violent to the extent that he thought slicing someone's nose off was a very good idea for no other good reason than he was an animal.